Thread (24 messages) 24 messages, 7 authors, 2025-08-14

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Allow individual features to be locked down

From: Nikolay Borisov <hidden>
Date: 2025-07-29 12:26:02
Also in: lkml


On 29.07.25 г. 15:16 ч., Nicolas Bouchinet wrote:
Hi Nikolay,

Thanks for you patch.

Quoting Kees [1], Lockdown is "about creating a bright line between
uid-0 and ring-0".

Having a bitmap enabled Lockdown would mean that Lockdown reasons could
be activated independently. I fear this would lead to a false sense of
security, locking one reason alone often permits Lockdown restrictions
bypass. i.e enforcing kernel module signature verification but not
blocking accesses to `/dev/{k,}mem` or authorizing gkdb which can be
used to disable the module signature enforcement.

If one wants to restrict accesses to `/dev/mem`,
`security_locked_down(LOCKDOWN_DEV_MEM)` should be sufficient.

My understanding of your problem is that this locks too much for your
usecase and you want to restrict reasons of Lockdown independently in
case it has not been enabled in "integrity" mode by default ?

Can you elaborate more on the usecases for COCO ?
Initially this patchset was supposed to allow us selectively disable 
/dev/iomem access in a CoCo context [0]. As evident from Dan's initial 
response that point pretty much became moot as the issue was fixed in a 
different way. However, later [1] he came back and said that actually 
this patch could be useful in a similar context. So This v2 is 
essentially following up on that.


[0] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/67f69600ed221_71fe2946f@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch/ (local)

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/68226ad551afd_29032945b@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch/ (local)

<snip>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help